Who's tripping down the streets of the city
Stuttering just like Anthony Blanche
Who's reaching-out to piss-off Bill Pullman
Everyone knows it's Windy

"The film includes interviews with celebrities and other influential people who support the work of these controversial speakers, including:

Ricky Gervais
Woody Allen
Cameron Diaz
Stephen Hawking
Sarah Silverman
Bill Pullman
Werner Herzog
Tim Minchin
Eddie Izzard
Ian McEwan
Adam Savage
Ayaan Hirsi-Ali
Penn Jillette
Sam Harris
Dan Dennett
James Randi
Cormac McCarthy
Paul Provenza
James Morrison
Michael Shermer
David Silverman
...and more.

www.unbelieversmovie.com"

I know the rover has the equipment to perform intercision, but they are still not sure if they can find any little Martian kids. >> ^hpqp:

I've just read the most excellent His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, so every time they say "Dust" it takes on a whole different meaning in my mind.

I've just read the most excellent His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, so every time they say "Dust" it takes on a whole different meaning in my mind.

Okay, so maybe Cain isn't a good candidate for pretty much any real-world situation. But damn, the day the aliens invade, I'm 100% behind Cain. Fuck Bill Pullman.

I await lots of weird, rude comments about religion.

At least take a lesson from Philip Pullman first.

^ @SDGundamX, I fail to see how hanging up a lynching noose falls under "violence" and not "offensive behaviour".

Are you talking about Fighting Words? That seems to be as good a definition of hate speech as any, and is based on the following belief:

"It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

(Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942)

However, to me that seems like a stupid attitude - is it then up to the judge's fancy whether, for instance, Philip Pullman's books constitute a "social value as a step to truth" or not?

If i "encourage" you to murder someone by saying you should, and you then do it, which of us is the guilty party? Are you less guilty because you were under my spell?

[edit] Oops, i confess i hadn't read the post-chaplinsky chapter in the wiki article. NOT so great a definition of hate speech then, but it does show how that sort of legislation is irrational

>> ^therealblankman:
In BC right now there's a Human Rights Tribunal hearing into an incident at a restaurant, which was holding a comedy night several years ago. A lesbian couple walked in and the comedian gave them a hard time for coming late and made a comment about Dykes. Here's a link to the story.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Lawyer+representing+comedian+walks+human+rights+hearing/2740470/story.html
Seriously, as someone who really fundamentally believes in the freedom of ideas and speech, I'm really shocked that this even has a hearing. We in Canada have no Constitutionally protected freedom of speech- like those in the US do. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be read here... http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/.
Pullman is absolutely right- nobody should have the right to go through life un-offended.


Actually, Supreme Court already ruled it was free speech. The tribunal is just ignoring that. Both sides seem to be lying up a storm though.

Just an FYI though, Americans have less Freedom of Speech than Canadians. They have corporate law stomping their mouths closed too.

>> ^Bidouleroux:

Basically, the guy gave his (subjective and retarded) opinion about the title of the book. The author rightfully responded with his own (objective and rational) opinion. I fail to see how you fail to see the problem.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair to the "over-sensitive asshat", he didn't say the book should be banned. In fact he pretty much foreshadowed Pullmans advice and communicated his dislike of the title to him. I fail to see how that's a problem.




You are missing the point. The merits of their respective opinions are irrelevant. Or do you want to censor opinions you don't agree with?

There is no problem. The guy in the audience was doing -precisely- what the author said in his rant that people could do...complain about the book. Frankly, based on this video, I'd have to consider the author to be little more than a troll, making statements designed for no other purpose than to offend. I'd much rather listen to Dawkins, whose offensiveness is almost always completely coincidental.
>> ^Bidouleroux:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair to the "over-sensitive asshat", he didn't say the book should be banned. In fact he pretty much foreshadowed Pullmans advice and communicated his dislike of the title to him. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Basically, the guy gave his (subjective and retarded) opinion about the title of the book. The author rightfully responded with his own (objective and rational) opinion. I fail to see how you fail to see the problem.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair to the "over-sensitive asshat", he didn't say the book should be banned. In fact he pretty much foreshadowed Pullmans advice and communicated his dislike of the title to him. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Basically, the guy gave his (subjective and retarded) opinion about the title of the book. The author rightfully responded with his own (objective and rational) opinion. I fail to see how you fail to see the problem.

While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair to the "over-sensitive asshat", he didn't say the book should be banned. In fact he pretty much foreshadowed Pullmans advice and communicated his dislike of the title to him. I fail to see how that's a problem.

In BC right now there's a Human Rights Tribunal hearing into an incident at a restaurant, which was holding a comedy night several years ago. A lesbian couple walked in and the comedian gave them a hard time for coming late and made a comment about Dykes. Here's a link to the story.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Lawyer+representing+comedian+walks+human+rights+hearing/2740470/story.html

Seriously, as someone who really fundamentally believes in the freedom of ideas and speech, I'm really shocked that this even has a hearing. We in Canada have no Constitutionally protected freedom of speech- like those in the US do. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be read here... http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/.

Pullman is absolutely right- nobody should have the right to go through life un-offended.

Found at Boing Boing.

In reply to this comment by Enzoblue:
Ok, I'll do it.

What you guys are failing to understand is that pure capitalism regulates itself. Every problem we have now is because of government intervention in the free market. Most of the very big companies we have today got there by enlisting the governments help. The "winds of history" tell a sordid tale of large companies using the government to help them meet their ends. Even to the point of using the military against civilians as in the Pullman strike and the Ludlow massacre.

Monopolies would only exist in the free market if that company consistently had a better quality products at better prices than any single smaller company, which is virtually impossible without stuff like government enforced patents etc. (Imagine a world without patents for a minute, it's fun.) What big companies do now is quash smaller companies by using the government to, for example, get laws past that favor their model or labor laws passed that favor their workers over their competitors - tons of ways. Also by enlisting the government to work internationally, sometimes with wars, sometimes assassinations, coups etc as with Exxon and United Fruit.

It's a racket, pure and simple. Why make a better product at less profit if you can force people to buy what you have with an FDA ruling? Why pay top dollar for a quality forest when you can get it in a deal with a friendly government installed by your government? Stuff like that.

Edit:

Ask yourself why orange juice is so damned expensive. 3 to 4 dollars a gallon? The stuff grows on trees, the trees grow like weeds, you can get what.. 20-30 gallons a tree?? The answer is that orange juice owners want to be filthy rich. The asked for the governments help and they got it. Our government uses YOUR tax dollars to pay orange tree farmers to destroy parts of their crops in order to reduce supply and keep the prices up. If the government wasn't involved, orange juice would be 50 cents a gallon and the orange juice owners would only be moderately well off. Think about it.


fucking right on man.well said.